M/S. DYM Auto World VS Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise

The case revolves around the petitioner, a GST payee with a specific GSTIN number for their proprietor business. Initially, the petitioner filed their GST return for June 2020 within the required timeframe by December 31, 2020. However, due to significant business losses and subsequent mental distress, including an attempted suicide at the end of December 2020, the petitioner couldn’t file subsequent returns. They were hospitalized for the entirety of December and part of January 2021. Consequently, after six months of non-filing, the petitioner received a notice on January 4, 2021, to justify why their GST registration shouldn’t be canceled. The petitioner couldn’t reply within the stipulated seven days due to their condition.

The petitioner argues that their inability to file returns on time was due to their physical and mental state, compounded by business losses. However, the respondent’s advocate contends that the petitioner didn’t respond to the show-cause notice, which is contradicted by the impugned order stating otherwise. Despite acknowledging the petitioner’s circumstances, the respondent emphasizes the petitioner’s failure to adhere to GST regulations, leading to the rejection of their registration. The respondent suggests that the appropriate recourse for the petitioner is to appeal this decision.

The petitioner’s advocate raises several objections. Firstly, they argue that the show-cause notice lacked justification for its issuance. Secondly, they claim that the petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard, which could potentially render the impugned order invalid. They suggest that if the order was passed without due hearing, the petitioner could seek redress through Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction. Additionally, they cite an unreported decision to support their contention, emphasizing the importance of providing reasons for orders.

In summary, the case involves a petitioner who, due to business losses and subsequent mental distress, failed to file GST returns. Despite acknowledging the petitioner’s circumstances, the authorities rejected their GST registration, leading to legal contention regarding the fairness of the process and the petitioner’s rights to redress.

The petitioner, registered under GST with GSTIN No. 19ANZPD0398J1Z9 for their proprietor business, initially filed their GST return for June 2020 within the mandated timeframe of December 31, 2020. However, due to significant business losses leading to emotional distress, culminating in a suicide attempt on December 27, 2020, the petitioner was hospitalized throughout December and part of January 2021. Consequently, they failed to file returns for six consecutive months, resulting in a show-cause notice issued on January 4, 2021, regarding potential cancellation of their GST registration. The petitioner contends that their physical and mental health, coupled with business losses, prevented timely response to the notice.

Remarkably, despite the petitioner’s claim of not submitting any reply to the show-cause notice, the impugned order erroneously indicates consideration of a response dated January 15, 2021. The respondent’s counsel admits the absence of a reply but asserts the petitioner’s failure to adhere to GST payment regulations justifies registration cancellation, suggesting the remedy lies in appealing to the appropriate authority.

The petitioner argues that the show-cause notice lacks justification and denies them a fair hearing. They suggest that if the order was issued ex parte, without granting them an opportunity to be heard, constitutional writ jurisdiction could be sought for redress. Additionally, the petitioner cites legal precedents emphasizing the importance of providing reasons for decisions, as highlighted in the case of Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works Vs. State of Gujarat (SCA No.18860 of 2021) and a Madras High Court decision on January 31, 2022.

Furthermore, the petitioner’s advocate underscores the intention behind GST enactments and rules, emphasizing facilitation rather than debarring or de-recognizing assesses from re-entering the GST system.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: